INTRODUCTION
Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) awarded the death penalty to former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, triggering intense political and diplomatic debate across South Asia. She was convicted of crimes against humanity, a verdict that many believe reflects a political vendetta rather than genuine justice. Ironically, the same tribunal framework that has now convicted her was revived by Hasina herself in 2010. The situation has placed India in a tight diplomatic spot, forcing a delicate balance between legal obligations, political considerations, and humanitarian values[1].
While discussions around Sheikh Hasina require a clear separation between legal facts and political interpretations, as it raises questions with the insertion of law, diplomacy, and international obligations. The current situation surrounding extradition, the legitimacy of Bangladesh’s interim government, and the possibility of intervention by the International Criminal Court (ICC) is clouded by misinformation. This blog clarifies the key legal issues at stake and examines the choices before India.
KEY WORDS: Extradition, International Criminal Court (ICC), Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal (ICT).
WHAT IS EXTRADITION
Extradition is the formal legal mechanism through which one State requests from the requested State the surrender of a person accused or convicted of a crime to face trial or serve a sentence in the requesting jurisdiction. Traditionally, there was no inherent duty to extradite. Extradition was often handled on informal relations between leaders of sovereign States. The increasing number of such cases created the need for more formal agreements.[2]
UNDERSTANDING THE INDIA–BANGLADESH EXTRADITION TREATY
The nature of India’s extradition obligations under the 2013 India-Bangladesh Extradition Treaty, which was amended in 2016, is a misunderstood aspect of the Hasina case.[3]
MISCONCEPTIONS
1: Bangladesh must provide evidence of the crimes committed.
Incorrect. Originally, Art 10(3) of the Treaty required detailed evidence along with an extradition request. But the 2016 amendment removed this requirement. Under the current version of Art 10(3), the requesting state only needs to provide:
- A valid arrest warrant
- Proof that the person being sought is the same person named in the warrant
This amendment was made during her own tenure as Prime Minister to ensure faster processing of extradition requests, a twist of fate that now works against her.
Does this apply to Hasina now?
No, Art 10(3) applies to those who are accused but not yet convicted. Since Hasina has already been convicted, Bangladesh will need to submit a fresh request under Art 10(4).
Art 10(4): Extraditing a Convicted Person
This clause requires two conditions:
- A certificate of conviction or sentence
- Proof that the person cannot challenge the conviction any further
Bangladesh cannot request extradition under Art10(4) yet. Until she exhausts all appeals, India is not obligated to consider an extradition request. Since Hasina still has valid legal remedies available under Bangladeshi law[4].
- The Political Offence Exception: Does It Apply to Hasina?
India can refuse extradition because Hasina is being targeted for political reasons is another misconception. The Treaty’s Art 6(1) states that extradition may be refused for “political offences.” However, serious crimes such as murder are excluded from being considered political in nature u/a 6(2). Hasina was convicted of crimes against humanity, not political offences. Therefore, her case cannot be shielded by the political offence exception.[5].
- The Real Legal Shield: The “Good Faith” Clause
This Act offers ground that allows India to refuse extradition. If India wants a solid legal basis to reject Bangladesh’s request, which are the request is not made in good faith, and granting extradition would be unjust or oppressive.
In Hasina’s case, this may be applicable due to:
- The nature of the trial
- The speed of the conviction
- The absence of standard procedural safeguards
- The overtly political environment surrounding the ICT proceedings
We can rely on this clause to deny extradition while still staying within the legal framework. If India concludes that the proceedings were driven by political vendetta rather than judicial fairness.
- Is the Yunus-Led Interim Government Legitimate Under International Law?
Muhammad Yunus, being unelected, lacks legitimacy and therefore cannot pursue a trial or seek extradition. Under international law, this claim does not hold.
A government’s de facto control over territory and its ability to engage in international relations determine its legitimacy for legal purposes. Despite lacking democratic legitimacy, the Yunus government Exercises effective control over Bangladesh, maintains international diplomatic relations is recognised by other countries, including India.
Therefore, the mere fact that it is unelected does not invalidate judicial or diplomatic acts undertaken by it. This does not mean the government is morally or politically legitimate — only that, legally, its actions remain valid.
- Can the International Criminal Court Intervene?
However, many misunderstand the ICC’s role and jurisdiction. Hasina has challenged the interim government to take the matter to the ICC.
The ICC operates under the principle of complementarity, meaning it steps in only when domestic courts are unable or unwilling to prosecute crimes genuinely.
In Hasina’s scenario, the ICT has already issued a conviction. However, the plausible argument that the ICT’s actions were neither independent nor impartial, opening the door at least theoretically for ICC scrutiny. Whether this would translate into actual investigation is uncertain and depends on a range of legal and diplomatic factors.
- India’s Moral, Legal, and Strategic Calculus
India now faces a complex decision matrix:
Legal Considerations: Extradition cannot occur until Hasina exhausts all appeals.
- India can legally refuse extradition based on a lack of good faith behind the charges.
Political Considerations
- Supporting Hasina may appear as interference in Bangladesh’s internal politics.
- Extraditing her may be seen as siding with an unelected interim government.
Humanitarian Considerations
The death penalty and questionable due-process standards strengthen Hasina’s humanitarian claim. Ultimately, India must balance its commitment to human rights, bilateral relations with Bangladesh, regional strategic interests, and reputation as a democracy that values due process.[6]
CONCLUSION
This case is a test of India’s legal obligations, moral values, and diplomatic finesse. The charges against her were framed as crimes against humanity, but the circumstances surrounding her trial raise serious concerns about fairness and impartiality. The India-Bangladesh Extradition Treaty does not impose an immediate obligation on India to extradite her; instead, it gives India room to act in accordance with justice, fairness, and national interest.
Accountability for abuses of power is essential, but it must never come at the cost of due process and human rights. At a broader level, the controversy highlights the dangers of politicising judicial institutions and using legal mechanisms as tools of vengeance.
Author(s) Name: Srishti Gupta (University of Rajasthan, Jaipur)
References:
[1]. Shubhajit Roy, “India: Examining Bangladesh’s Request to Extradite Sheikh Hasina” The Indian Express (27 November 2025) < https://indianexpress.com/article/india/request-being-examined-mea-bangladesh-request-sheikh-hasina-extradition-10387787/ > accessed 11 December 2025.
[2] “Organized Crime Module 11: Key Issues-Extradition” (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, May 2018) <https://www.unodc.org/e4j/zh/organized-crime/module-11/key-issues/extradition.html > accessed 11 December 2025.
[3] Treaty between the Republic of India and the People’s Republic of Bangladesh Relating to Extradition (28 January 2013, in force 23 October 2013, amended 7 September 2016) arts 1, 2, 6, 8, 10 < https://indiankanoon.org/doc/127981464/ > accessed 11 December 2025.
[4] Ibid arts 10(3)–10(4)
[5] Ibid arts 6(1)–6(2)
[6].Rauscompass, “Article 21 and Indefinite Detention of Non-Citizens in India – Rau’s IAS” (Compass by Rau’s IAS, August 29, 2025) <https://compass.rauias.com/current-affairs/article-21-indefinite-detention-of-non-citizens-in-india/ > accessed 11 December 2025.
